"House Rules": a question for testers

Twelvefield · 03-15-2006, 05:33 AM

If the testers are allowed to answer to this: do you use "house rules" in the new OOTPB to make gameplay more challenging, such as trade limits and salary caps, and the like? Or is the new OOTPB more challenging than previous versions?

Twelvefield · 03-17-2006, 05:03 AM

Gorilla Shakepeare bumped his own message, and got a reply from Markus. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping for an answer, too...

battists · 03-17-2006, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twelvefield

If the testers are allowed to answer to this: do you use "house rules" in the new OOTPB to make gameplay more challenging, such as trade limits and salary caps, and the like? Or is the new OOTPB more challenging than previous versions?

I can only speak for myself, but to be honest, I think we rarely get far enough into the game at this stage to make a solid assessment of the challenge level. I think Tiger Fan mentioned elsewhere that there is no compatibility between beta versions at this point. Since we get a new beta every few days, there's really not much time (so far) to run through years of simming to understand the challenge level.

Just so you're not scared off: obviously, as the product has "matured," builds get less frequent, which gives us more time to play between builds. But, most of my testing (not necessarily others') to date has been focused more on "does functionality X work," rather than "is functionality Y tweaked just right"? Looking for things that are fundamentally broken, or produce errors, in other words. But, I tend to think that the focus has been gradually moving more towards the tweaking aspect the further along development has gotten.

spleen1015 · 03-17-2006, 10:40 AM

I doubt Markus and Co want the testers giving us this information anyway.

I think it is a bad sign for the game if the beta testers tell you they need to play with house rules.

Twelvefield · 03-17-2006, 01:18 PM

Well, that all makes sense, and thanks for the replies. I don't usually mind playing with some "house rules", but I also would want the developers to be on top of designing better AI, too.

A good example is the Civilization series of games. One weak point is in the technology trading (one could argue that a perennial weak point in OOTPB is in player trading, which is at its root a similar concept), so some effort has been made to make tech trading somewhat more challenging. There's also a "house rule" option that's implemented into the game that completely disallows trades of any kind.

That's a pretty fair example of how a common "house rule" makes it into game development, and everyone goes away more or less happy.

I'll try to remember to enquire about this again as we approach OOTPB going gold.

silvam14 · 03-17-2006, 01:26 PM

The tv show "House" rules

Dark Horse · 03-17-2006, 02:11 PM

i've never looked at the code. And i haven't touched/tested/played the new version. But i can almost guarantee you that users that play solo leagues will almost certainly need to use "house rules". And that's no knock on OOTP2k6 or Markus.

In sims like this, you'll always need to use house rules. Because, the AI can't learn. And Markus couldn't possibly program in all the permutations of thought that the human mind can generate... Well, he could, but he'd have to put up with two or three more years of "what's the release date?" before he could put out the next version. The majority of the people on these boards are intelligent enough to find the "hole" in the AI's "thinking" and exploit it.

That's why there are so many online leagues and god leagues.

One good thing is that the teams will hopefully have different "personalities/strategies" so the AI might be different from team to team. Instead of being able to use to the same type of trade to get over on every team.

kingpin1976 · 03-17-2006, 03:09 PM

I find OOTP 6.5x quite challenging if you start by playing in "real life" conditions and those are, turn off ratings,talent 1-10, turn off stars,misc ratings 1-5,ie fielding,stealing,etc.,AI trading set difficult.Although I can "buy" a winning team via free agency I cant trade away for top prospects without giving up a lot in return.With ratings off it becomes a huge gamble trading away a star veteran for an unproven rookie.I guess some would say these are house rules but in real life you dont look at a player and say wow he has a contact of 95,but you could say it looks like he has a talent of 95(or in my case from 1-10).Make sense? I could make it even more realistic by turning off misc. ratings, but I have found a good balance of difficulty in what I have setup now.About two years ago when I decided to turn off ratings and stars I thought it would be no fun not knowing where a player was actually at,compared to talent.but it quickly become enjoyable "estimating" at who could fill my 5th spot in my rotation and find a hidden gem who ends up with a career year,or the times I've had to shuffle different starters from the minors who just didnt cut it at the big leagues.
Well I'm winded

statmeister · 03-17-2006, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I doubt Markus and Co want the testers giving us this information anyway.

I think it is a bad sign for the game if the beta testers tell you they need to play with house rules.

The beta testers probably sign non-disclosure agreements, so they can't share specific items that are in the game, post screen shots, etc. The best we can hope for is the occasional tidbit from Markus.

-SM

Hotwheelz · 03-17-2006, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingpin1976

I find OOTP 6.5x quite challenging if you start by playing in "real life" conditions and those are, turn off ratings,talent 1-10, turn off stars,misc ratings 1-5,ie fielding,stealing,etc.,AI trading set difficult.Although I can "buy" a winning team via free agency I cant trade away for top prospects without giving up a lot in return.With ratings off it becomes a huge gamble trading away a star veteran for an unproven rookie.I guess some would say these are house rules but in real life you dont look at a player and say wow he has a contact of 95,but you could say it looks like he has a talent of 95.Make sense?

The only problem I find with this strategy, which I have started to use more often, is that its much harder to evaluate talent in the minors since minor league stats mean very little. Sure it adds to the challenge but I also dont find it very realistic. If the stats did mean anything and you could evaluate a player by looking at trends in the minor leagues then this would be a great idea. Until then I use the strategy with caution

kingpin1976 · 03-17-2006, 03:53 PM

I wont say I'm 100% sure on this but I believe the great Bill James has stated minor league numbers dont equate much into major league production,I think I would have to argue though that you can see in stats in the minors you can tell what type of player they are gonna be,you see a prosect at AAA hitting .220 with 30 homers you have a pretty good idea that he would be among the top power hitters if he could bring it at the majors level albeit a poor average.

battists · 03-17-2006, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by statmeister

The beta testers probably sign non-disclosure agreements, so they can't share specific items that are in the game, post screen shots, etc. The best we can hope for is the occasional tidbit from Markus.

We do sign NDAs. Generally, we seek permission from Markus or Marc to respond to detailed questions. Things are a little more lenient when it comes to clarifying something has already been posted in a blog, etc.

I think Dark Horse is most likely correct, anyway.

Mike Donlin · 03-18-2006, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingpin1976

I wont say I'm 100% sure on this but I believe the great Bill James has stated minor league numbers dont equate much into major league production.

I thought it was the exact opposite.

ukhotstove · 03-18-2006, 07:55 AM

Maybe one of the testers could say if I'm right or wrong but in OOTP2006 wouldn't you be able to get the best of both worlds, ie switch all ratings and stars of in the majors but leave them on in the minors so you have to scout on stats in the majors but be able to evaluate ratings in the minors.

Gorilla Shakespeare · 03-18-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingpin1976

I wont say I'm 100% sure on this but I believe the great Bill James has stated minor league numbers dont equate much into major league production,I think I would have to argue though that you can see in stats in the minors you can tell what type of player they are gonna be,you see a prosect at AAA hitting .220 with 30 homers you have a pretty good idea that he would be among the top power hitters if he could bring it at the majors level albeit a poor average.

Nah, Bill James said that minor league numbers *do* equate into major league production after you adjust for the quality of play. That was one of James' first big sabremetric principles, IIRC, right after "most major league managers are not very bright." Note that fluke years and slumps happen in the minors, too, so don't point to Eric Yelding as an example of minor league stats being meaningless.

cdheer · 03-18-2006, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorilla Shakespeare

Note that fluke years and slumps happen in the minors, too, so don't point to Eric Yelding as an example of minor league stats being meaningless.

That's the thing with statistics: they're not useful without a large enough sample size. One year of stats is not large enough.

Almost always when a player suddenly has a year that's far and away a significant improvement over, say, five previous years, it's a fluke. You can usually expect such a player to return to form sooner or later. Yet baseball organizations make mistakes all the time by ignoring this simple principle. I can still remember my Cubbies being all wow'ed by the Almighty Joe Borowski. Journeyman for ten years suddenly is thrust into the closer's role and has an incredible year. All along I was thinking, "Sooner or later this guy's going to be a journeyman again." But the Cubs organization was thinking, "Holy cow, he's magically turned into Mariano Rivera!" This sort of thing is going on all the time, and it's sad because, frankly, it's not a complicated idea.

--chris

kingpin1976 · 03-18-2006, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdheer

That's the thing with statistics: they're not useful without a large enough sample size. One year of stats is not large enough.

Almost always when a player suddenly has a year that's far and away a significant improvement over, say, five previous years, it's a fluke. You can usually expect such a player to return to form sooner or later. Yet baseball organizations make mistakes all the time by ignoring this simple principle. I can still remember my Cubbies being all wow'ed by the Almighty Joe Borowski. Journeyman for ten years suddenly is thrust into the closer's role and has an incredible year. All along I was thinking, "Sooner or later this guy's going to be a journeyman again." But the Cubs organization was thinking, "Holy cow, he's magically turned into Mariano Rivera!" This sort of thing is going on all the time, and it's sad because, frankly, it's not a complicated idea.

--chris

Yeah I totally agree with you on the Borowski thing.It made me cringe when I heard about the fat contract they gave him in the offseason.Then what happened to him last year?I know he was injured but was it all season?

cdheer · 03-18-2006, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingpin1976

Yeah I totally agree with you on the Borowski thing.It made me cringe when I heard about the fat contract they gave him in the offseason.Then what happened to him last year?I know he was injured but was it all season?

He was hurt in 04. Then in 05 he pitched all of 11 games for the Cubbies before going down with a broken arm. When Wood came back in June Borowski was designated for assignment. He ended up with Tampa and had a decent year. The Marlins signed him to a one-year deal in December.

84Hammy · 03-18-2006, 09:54 PM

Why do some equate "real life" in OOTP with turning off ratings and such? Of course MLB teams rate and evaluate players. Check Brandon Inge at 3b last season. Most errors by any 3b, but also, and by a long shot, most chances. Teams have to make evaluations and pay close attention to the interpretations of numbers. The result is a rating. Inge is good enough at 3b to be the Tigers everyday 3b. As for house rules, I like the 1-5 ratings across the board. Stars are left on to evaluate/rank prospects. I can still build a decent team and feel like its pretty real.

Twelvefield · 03-18-2006, 11:10 PM

Stars and ratings are like my brother-in-law house-sitting our place while Mrs. Twelvefield and I are away on vacation. He is fastideously clean, much more so than we are. He has parties when we are away, he surfs terrible porn sites that give my computer awful viruses, and he's locked himself out a couple of times.

So he's helpful, but we can't trust him by himself. Stars and ratings are exactly the same way. They're very helpful, they certainly clean up the team displays, but you can't completely trust them.

03-15-2006, 05:33 AM	#1
Twelvefield All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,188	"House Rules": a question for testers If the testers are allowed to answer to this: do you use "house rules" in the new OOTPB to make gameplay more challenging, such as trade limits and salary caps, and the like? Or is the new OOTPB more challenging than previous versions?

03-17-2006, 02:11 PM	#7
Dark Horse Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: Texas! Posts: 2,633	i've never looked at the code. And i haven't touched/tested/played the new version. But i can almost guarantee you that users that play solo leagues will almost certainly need to use "house rules". And that's no knock on OOTP2k6 or Markus. In sims like this, you'll always need to use house rules. Because, the AI can't learn. And Markus couldn't possibly program in all the permutations of thought that the human mind can generate... Well, he could, but he'd have to put up with two or three more years of "what's the release date?" before he could put out the next version. The majority of the people on these boards are intelligent enough to find the "hole" in the AI's "thinking" and exploit it. That's why there are so many online leagues and god leagues. One good thing is that the teams will hopefully have different "personalities/strategies" so the AI might be different from team to team. Instead of being able to use to the same type of trade to get over on every team. __________________ A Justafan Fan LBA Geo Bahn Rock Hounds fan of the ISLANDIAN PRO ALLIANCE

03-17-2006, 03:09 PM	#8
kingpin1976 Major Leagues Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 402	I find OOTP 6.5x quite challenging if you start by playing in "real life" conditions and those are, turn off ratings,talent 1-10, turn off stars,misc ratings 1-5,ie fielding,stealing,etc.,AI trading set difficult.Although I can "buy" a winning team via free agency I cant trade away for top prospects without giving up a lot in return.With ratings off it becomes a huge gamble trading away a star veteran for an unproven rookie.I guess some would say these are house rules but in real life you dont look at a player and say wow he has a contact of 95,but you could say it looks like he has a talent of 95(or in my case from 1-10).Make sense? I could make it even more realistic by turning off misc. ratings, but I have found a good balance of difficulty in what I have setup now.About two years ago when I decided to turn off ratings and stars I thought it would be no fun not knowing where a player was actually at,compared to talent.but it quickly become enjoyable "estimating" at who could fill my 5th spot in my rotation and find a hidden gem who ends up with a career year,or the times I've had to shuffle different starters from the minors who just didnt cut it at the big leagues. Well I'm winded Last edited by kingpin1976; 03-17-2006 at 03:22 PM.

03-18-2006, 07:55 AM	#14
ukhotstove Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: North of England Gods Country Posts: 7,175	Maybe one of the testers could say if I'm right or wrong but in OOTP2006 wouldn't you be able to get the best of both worlds, ie switch all ratings and stars of in the majors but leave them on in the minors so you have to scout on stats in the majors but be able to evaluate ratings in the minors. __________________ Detroit Diesel Dynasty San Antonio Calzones of Laredo Dynasty

03-17-2006, 05:03 AM	#2
Twelvefield All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,188	Gorilla Shakepeare bumped his own message, and got a reply from Markus. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping for an answer, too...

03-17-2006, 10:40 AM	#4
spleen1015 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 6,010	I doubt Markus and Co want the testers giving us this information anyway. I think it is a bad sign for the game if the beta testers tell you they need to play with house rules.

03-17-2006, 01:18 PM	#5
Twelvefield All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,188	Well, that all makes sense, and thanks for the replies. I don't usually mind playing with some "house rules", but I also would want the developers to be on top of designing better AI, too. A good example is the Civilization series of games. One weak point is in the technology trading (one could argue that a perennial weak point in OOTPB is in player trading, which is at its root a similar concept), so some effort has been made to make tech trading somewhat more challenging. There's also a "house rule" option that's implemented into the game that completely disallows trades of any kind. That's a pretty fair example of how a common "house rule" makes it into game development, and everyone goes away more or less happy. I'll try to remember to enquire about this again as we approach OOTPB going gold.

03-17-2006, 01:26 PM	#6
silvam14 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Dedham, MA Posts: 10,208	The tv show "House" rules

03-17-2006, 03:53 PM	#11
kingpin1976 Major Leagues Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 402	I wont say I'm 100% sure on this but I believe the great Bill James has stated minor league numbers dont equate much into major league production,I think I would have to argue though that you can see in stats in the minors you can tell what type of player they are gonna be,you see a prosect at AAA hitting .220 with 30 homers you have a pretty good idea that he would be among the top power hitters if he could bring it at the majors level albeit a poor average.

03-18-2006, 09:54 PM	#19
84Hammy All Star Reserve Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Stinky Windsor Posts: 919	Why do some equate "real life" in OOTP with turning off ratings and such? Of course MLB teams rate and evaluate players. Check Brandon Inge at 3b last season. Most errors by any 3b, but also, and by a long shot, most chances. Teams have to make evaluations and pay close attention to the interpretations of numbers. The result is a rating. Inge is good enough at 3b to be the Tigers everyday 3b. As for house rules, I like the 1-5 ratings across the board. Stars are left on to evaluate/rank prospects. I can still build a decent team and feel like its pretty real.

03-18-2006, 11:10 PM	#20
Twelvefield All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,188	Stars and ratings are like my brother-in-law house-sitting our place while Mrs. Twelvefield and I are away on vacation. He is fastideously clean, much more so than we are. He has parties when we are away, he surfs terrible porn sites that give my computer awful viruses, and he's locked himself out a couple of times. So he's helpful, but we can't trust him by himself. Stars and ratings are exactly the same way. They're very helpful, they certainly clean up the team displays, but you can't completely trust them.